Dictators take away your choice.
Or reveal your weaknesses. ¹

For Thomas Jefferson, the pursuit of happiness embraced many forms of opportunity, including the natural linkage between a general education and free enterprise. Along with George Washington, he favored Federal funding for education. He felt the future of republican government depended upon a “general education to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.”² Within his context of unlimited territorial expansion and the ensuing Homestead Act, any American was free to stake a claim and start a farm or ranch, or to open a business or school in a growing community. Teachers from small towns like Concord or Salem could and did travel great distances to start schools in the newly opened territories. And small business entrepreneurs could open their doors to burgeoning communities spreading from the expansive plains to the Pacific Ocean. If we fast forward to contemporary America, we find an even broader opportunity landscape in which to exercise individual freedom and pursue personal happiness. The only question is whether our education system and enterprising culture present opportunities truly accessible and beneficial to all Americans. And that question presumes a politics aligned with the ideals shared by Jefferson and the signers of our Constitution.

But staking a claim on coveted opportunities is quite different now than in the 18th and 19th centuries. America began the 20th century on the wave of an industrial revolution which metamorphized into a tsunami of technological innovation. While America’s burgeoning economy was creating more career choices, it also demanded more investment in relevant education. And young opportunists required more than their native ability or physical stamina. They needed their Government to fulfill the Jeffersonian promise. Americans needed the equivalent of a 19th century Homestead Act, that is, a general education system made available to every young American. Education and a free enterprise system are intertwined in the provision of equal opportunity. It is not an accident that Jefferson conjoined “life” and “liberty” with the “pursuit of happiness” as quintessential elements of “inalienable rights.” These rights are weaved into the very fabric of a democratic state for they are essential to every individual—essential, because woven into each person by right of birth. Though no government can or should attempt to guarantee happiness, it must secure the opportunity for every citizen to pursue his/her personal path to happiness.

America’s compulsory education system, taken as just one example, is part of that government commitment. Alexis de Tocqueville shared an interesting observation about education in the nascent phase of our nation: “In the United States, education as a whole is directed toward political life; in Europe its main object is preparation for private live, as the citizens’ participation in public affairs is too rare an event to be provided for in advance.”³ Obviously, much has changed nearly two hundred years later. Contemporary America must now prepare its citizens to meet both their political responsibilities and their private ambitions. Recent political protests are expressions of our political responsibilities, as is the exercise of our right to vote. But the diversity of opportunity in a sophisticated modern economy also requires an education system that prepares citizens for both their political and private lives, to include vocational and/or academic training designed to accommodate individual career choices.

And those choices are made real by a well-managed economy, which is another part of our government’s commitment to provide opportunities for every citizen. In fact, our general and individual prosperity depends on an economic system that ensures fairness and opportunity without which there is no growth or productivity. Remember why Jefferson wrote our Declaration of Independence: amongst many grievances he specifically outlined the oppression of the colonialist economy by punitive taxes and tariffs. “No taxation without representation” and “free trade” were amongst the loudest rallying cries of the American revolution. And those rallying cries are no less relevant today. They might inspire one to question whether our tax system benefits education and the prospects for a new workforce of young professionals rather than the accumulated wealth of an extraordinarily small minority. Further, one might question how can tariff wars benefit America in a global economy that depends upon services and resources distributed across many continents. America’s economy did not mushroom in isolation but bloomed on a world stage that it both led and dominated. These questions concerning tax and trade policies relate directly to our youth’s education and job opportunities. How can we not see this nexus between education, the economy, and politics?

While the growing list of college graduates seems to promise a bright future for a new generation, actual prospects for these graduates are hampered by huge tuition debts. And entry level jobs tend to pay less in an economy that favors pre-established wealth or proven expertise. The current Administration exemplifies this predilection where nepotism and wealth appear as the primary qualifications for lucrative senior positions in the White House, while career public service jobs earn much less. As a corollary, wage increases have generally remained stagnant compared with the growth in wealth at the top of the economic ladder. And coupled with the high costs of college tuitions, sparse investments in our public k-12 education system further impede our youths’ future. Their prospects are threatened on both ends of the education ladder. Consequently, the jobs of the future are often rewarded to H-1B Visa holders with special expertise. The promise of our public education system is falling short of the demands of the job market as well as the expectations of our youth. And if college debt continues to hinder the prospects for graduates, then it becomes more likely that only those who can afford college tuition will realize the career benefits of a college education. How then can we assure that every child can pursue his/her chosen career? The answer certainly involves both economic and political components. But, unfortunately, those components are complicated and involve a panoply of obstacles to the future opportunities of our posterity.

Before Covid-19, the unusual occurrence of low inflation and low unemployment coupled with record high stock indices demonstrated what the President termed the “greatest American economy in history.” But he was very selective in highlighting just one aspect of his 2018 tax reduction act. It did positively affect corporate stock prices and reduced taxes for the wealthy and passive investors. But what he ignored in his “greatest . . . economy” braggadocio was how those reduced tax rates disproportionately favored the wealthy over the average worker. In addition, while wage growth for workers at the bottom third of the economic ladder remained stagnant, tariff wars were bankrupting a significant number of independent farmers. Moreover, the costs of imported goods, housing, healthcare, college education, and food were challenging both low- and medium-income households and increasing their personal debt. That debt and the trillion-dollar government deficits consequent to the 2018 tax reduction further clouded America’s economic future. As a result, America was ill-prepared for the coronavirus pandemic which only augmented those deficits and reduced America’s economy to a level not experienced since the Great Depression. Before this pandemic, the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing during a period of persistently low inflation and high employment economy—which is itself an economic anomaly—now provides little flexibility for countering an economic downward spiral. These conditions are not indicators of a great economy, but of an affordability crisis and of a pending debt catastrophe. Is this how a well-managed economy secures the future of American wage earners and of the next generation’s opportunities?

During periods of severe economic downturns, Americans have looked to their government and specifically to their President for recovery and words of comfort. Franklin Roosevelt responded with the New Deal and his fireside chats. Barack Obama replicated his predecessor with a financial and infrastructure stimulus package. He also briefed Americans on their government’s progress and built their confidence in a restored economy. Given these historic models, how should we rate President Trump’s handling of our current crisis and its severe impact on the lives, health, and prospects of Americans? Perhaps more pointedly, what should we expect from any President during a national crisis? Well, the answer to these questions is found in our Constitution.

Article 2 addresses the role of the Executive. But the context is presented in the preamble where it is clearly stated that “in Order to form more perfect union” we must “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The participants in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 deliberately set out to construct a government that would do so by balancing the competing influences of its executive, legislative, and judicial branches. But they recognized that the threat of foreign intervention, influences, or even invasion, would require an executive with expansive powers to deal with all types of foreign threats, as well as any domestic threats, in order to secure the blessings of liberty for all. At the same time, they also worried whether the powers of a commander-in-chief might entice a future President to abuse those powers. Such abuse was defined as “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” or the use of the powers of office for self-enrichment via “any other Emolument” (Article 1, Section 4 and 1, respectively). Therefore, their Constitution provided for a Presidency that could be checked by either Congress or the courts. It stipulated that a President must take an oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States” (Article II, Section 1). Further, it demanded that any President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3).While they wanted to free the Presidency from frivolous entanglements, they also recognized the need to protect the republic from a dangerously rogue President. Such a President might disregard the general welfare and his responsibility to secure the “Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” in service of his personal interest or self-aggrandizement. They had, after all, rebelled against a monarch. While they recognized the need for a powerful executive capable of securing the individual liberty of America’s citizens, they also provided for impeachment of any President who assumed dictatorial power at the expense of that individual liberty promised to current and future generations of Americans. But is our individual liberty secured when an impeached President is acquitted of proven abuses of power and obstruction of justice in his attempt to serve his personal political interests rather than his oath of office, the law of the land, and the general welfare of all Americans, including their posterity? An affirmative answer to this question implies, even forebodes, an existential threat to our American republic.

The American Constitution alone cannot, as stated therein, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity.” It requires the good faith support and willing adherence of an informed—that is, generally educated—polity and its elected representatives. Just as we teach our children to follow the golden rule and be good citizens, we expect our leaders to take an oath to support our Constitution and pledge allegiance to our republic. Nevertheless, political leaders sometimes seem more invested in their reelection than to either their oath of office or the welfare of their constituents. But a craven lust for office and power cannot be justification for failing to remove from office a President proven guilty of crimes and abuse of power. That spineless justification makes the current Senate’s Republican majority complicit in our President’s crimes and abuses. And it abandons the great task that Lincoln laid down for us “that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” At Gettysburg, Lincoln was reminding us that Americans died to preserve a “nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Their courage is belied by the Republican senators who failed their oath to be just jurors and support the dictates of our Constitution. As a result, they bequeathed the helm of our ship of state to a captain intent on steering us onto a shoal.

Acquitting President Trump of gross misconduct in office—the trifecta of using the power of office for personal gain, of conspiring to undermine a national election, and of undercutting our national security by withholding support from a foreign ally in an extortion scheme—flies in the face of every conceivable expectation of an American President. By comparison, Bill Clinton violated the propriety of his office. Andrew Johnson ignored the legislative will of the majority Party in Congress. Clinton’s lie under oath violated the law. And Johnson’s opposition to Congress’ Tenure of Office Act violated the Constitutional separation of powers. Although Richard Nixon was never impeached, he resigned rather than face impeachment for his role in orchestrating crimes, specifically a burglary and its subsequent coverup. But President Trump far exceeded these former Presidents in his misconduct, abuse of power, disregard for our Constitutionally mandated separation of powers, and violation of his Article II responsibilities to assure that our “laws are faithfully executed.” Neither the Mueller report nor the impeachment transcripts exonerate President Trump. How then can we not conclude that he is indeed an existential threat to our democracy—that is, to our individual freedom and personal prospects for ourselves and our children?

His acquittal by a complicit Senate majority has further negative consequences. He now believes he is, in his own words, “the chief law enforcement officer.” He considers himself empowered to dictate who the Department of Justice should investigate or prosecute and what sentences, if any, should be assigned to convicted felons. If he disagrees with prosecutions or sentences, he reserves the right to pardon a convicted felon or commute a sentence without any supportive evidence that might justify leniency. He reserves to himself the right of kings to administer justice and disregard any legal restraint on the execution of his office. Although the Constitution grants the pardon power to the President, it does not grant him the power to pardon or commute a felon who can incriminate him in a crime. That pardon is itself a crime. Even President Trump’s loyal and subservient Attorney General admitted as much in his testimony under oath to Congress. And yet the President committed that very crime in pardoning Roger Stone for not testifying against him, as Stone readily admitted. Does not the Senate’s acquittal further support the President’s belief that his power is unlimited, that he is above the law, and that he is the chief law enforcer in the land? His impeachment defense lawyers unabashedly argued as such. In truth, the Republican majority in the Senate is traitorous to the primary principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and implemented in our Constitution. Our freedom and equal opportunity are now at risk to the whims, corruption, and incompetence of a rogue President who considers himself above the law. In both his words and his actions, he has demonstrated his belief that he is the state. Therefore, he feels justified in eschewing both Congressional oversight and any legal constraints.

Some believe that the President’s promise to “make America great again” is a viable political justification for his actions. In his mind, he realized that promise with the passage of tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. And the subsequent stock market boon justified his self-proclaimed success. His tax policy’s effect on the average wage earner, however, was somewhat masked by the economic expansion he inherited from the previous Administration. Nevertheless, both his MAGA promise and the market boon ended with his mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic. While China and Europe have long since emerged from the first wave peak of the virus, America has extended its peak to new heights with no end in sight. Meanwhile, the President dismisses the virus as if it does not exist or, as he says, “it will just disappear.” True, the virus’ rampage will end when there are no more victims to infect and untold numbers have died. The President assures this bleak outcome by refusing to develop and execute a national policy for a nationwide mitigation effort in lieu of a successful vaccine that could be months or even years away. In fact, he “takes no responsibility at all” and blames the governors for their myriad and uncoordinated response to the pandemic. As a result, his personal inaction has resulted in the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. His recent promise to rebuild the economy—”I can do it again”—is only believable if you accept his fantastical premise— “it (Covid-19) will just disappear”—and disregard the facts. Should we believe the President rather than the evidence of our eyes? That belief is not justified by the facts and can be fairly characterized as truly blind faith.

Such faith in the President may be based on a cynical belief that incompetence or corruption exists to some degree in nearly every Administration. Or it may be attributed to one of his many alleged conspiracy theories, including a “deep state” conspiring against the will of the people or a malicious cabal of Democrats and “fake news” harassing a much aggrieved and innocent President. According to these rationalizations and conspiracy theories, the President has either done nothing any other elected official has done or something he self-proclaims as right and lawful, though unappreciated by his deluded adversaries. A certain plurality of Americans remains unwavering in their support for this President’s excuses, grievances, and his various conspiracy theories. And that support has granted him the power he now holds over the Republican Party. Given his impeachment, how can the exoneration of a rogue president—an active disruptor of our democratic system—benefit the American people? How could Republicans acquit him? Obviously, they feared his supporters would enact revenge in the primary elections. How then could American voters reelect them or, more crucially, this Republican President? Well, they must believe more in him than in the principles of a democratic republic. For it is impossible to reconcile his actions with those principles and our Constitution.

There never was a rational policy premise to MAGA. The President’s tax policy was tilted toward wealth creation rather than any stimulus to productivity. His promises for rebuilding infrastructure never resulted in any policy initiative. His “law and order” justification for violent suppression of largely peaceful protests and his “zero tolerance” immigration executive orders failed to preserve life and liberty for either citizens or immigrants. Instead, they were met with myriad legal challenges since they violate human decency, existing laws—such as due process, and/or other Constitutional restraints. His appointees are not “the best people” he promised, but mostly sycophants and/or wealthy supporters poorly suited to the positions for which he nominated them. Many of his cabinet appointments were not only unaligned with the departments they managed but determined to undermine their mission. It is not difficult, by contrast, to find previous Republican Presidents who would disagree with opening Federal parks to gas and oil drilling, with removing 90+ regulations—many of which secure our health and safety, with removing all scientist from the USDA, with reducing funding for public education by diverting funds to private schools, with suppressing the EPA’s work on climate change and environmental pollution, with deploying the US military or Federal officers to contain public protests, with denial of due process and mass deportation of asylum seekers, and so on. Ironically and regrettably, President Trump’s failures over his first three years in office seemed less to demoralize his supporters than to normalize his misbehavior before the general public.

For many Americans, the President’s failure to address the Covid-19 pandemic is the singular failure of this Administration. The impact on our health system, the economy, and the suffering of so many Americans—not only from sickness and loss of income, but especially from the deaths of loved ones—is more than sufficient reason to vote President Trump out of office. But the pandemic response, I would contend, is only the latest example of his disregard for the lives of fellow human beings, for their freedom, or for their futures. His handling of our nation’s pandemic response fits an already well-established norm which includes 5400 immigrant children separated from their parents—at least seven of whom died in our custody, immigrant internment camps, the Kurdish genocide, his attack on our healthcare in the courts and by executive orders, and his support for foreign dictators who unleashed their militaries on civilians in Turkey, Syria, and the Philippines. These grievous offenses against humanity offend the conscience of Americans and the very integrity of our founding principles. His tariff wars and tax cuts demonstrate a quid pro quo management style designed to demonstrate his power and make wealthy or corporate benefactors financially beholden to him. He has never shown any interest in serving the general welfare, whether it involved education, healthcare, the environment, mitigation of climate change, income/wealth inequality, or the conduct of his office in accordance with the law of the land and our Constitution. Instead, he is now emboldened to make preemptive attacks on our voting system and to suppress the vote of his non-supporters.

This last point regarding voter suppression could become an endpoint for this democratic republic. President Donald J. Trump is attempting to mimic leaders like Erdogan, Putin, or any leader where the popular vote is not permitted to represent the will of the people. Instead, it is merely a pretense used to validate the office holder’s current position in government. The President wants to manipulate the vote in the November election. If he is successful in crippling the Post office before the next election, he could limit the number of mail-in ballots delivered by November 3rd, thereby reducing somewhat the number of votes against him. Because of the pandemic, a time-consuming absentee ballot count is anticipated. Wherever vote counting significantly delays results, he could focus on discrediting vote counts, especially in contested swing states. Given the likely prospect of delayed election results and contested vote counting, he could then claim voter fraud and formally dispute key state vote counts. In this orchestrated context of disputed vote counts, he could then engage a bevy of lawyers to contest the election—as he has already prefigured in recorded statements. Then he would declare victory in the midst of the chaos he has created—as he has done so often before whether with a government shutdown, illegal use of Congressionally allocated funds, border wall construction, and so on. What he wants is not a free election but some guarantee of his hold on the Presidency. Only then could he demand the assent of the governed by use of force if he deems it necessary. Police states have long used this technique. In fact, he has already done so to “dominate the (battle) space” occupied by mostly peaceful protesters.

Consider what this President would do if given another four-year term. He would have the military, the Department of Justice, the IRS, and federal officers of various agencies at his beck and call. In the last 3 ½ years he has slowly and determinedly put sycophants in charge of all these agencies. We have already seen how he uses them to force his will on the American people and to serve his personal/political interests. Just ask yourselves the following questions: who is investigated or acquitted by the DOJ; when are peaceful protests protected or suppressed; why are legally requested tax records not provided; and how are government expenditures managed to benefit the President’s personal interests rather than the American people as required by law? You already know the answers.

Have too many Americans abandoned the lessons learned in civics class? Has the “party of no” lost the ability to overcome political differences in service of core Constitutional values that demand due process, a free press, and the rights to peaceful assembly, to petition the government, and to impeach a rogue President. The overriding goals expressed in Jefferson’s declarative statement regarding inalienable rights and further delineated in the Preamble to the Constitution must be the sole guiding principles of this democratic republic. Otherwise, we are reduced to an election where voter suppression and criminal manipulation of the vote count replace winning the hearts and minds of voters and preserving our founding ideals. “Winning” in this instance would vindicate one man’s illusion of grandeur at the expense of “the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” How many of us choose to live in an illiberal democracy ruled by Nero incarnate? At least, Nero created music, rather than cheat at golf. And, unlike Trump, he did not start the fire that destroyed the civic entity he was sworn to serve.

To foreign observers, America warrants their pity for it no longer appears to be that “city on a hill,” holding up a beacon of hope to the world. This President has exposed and manipulated political fault lines to enhance his power. He has exploited the absence of more stringent oversight laws to benefit his personal and political benefit. He has exasperated income and wealth inequality to the detriment of the hopes and ambitions of millions of Americans. He has ignored the educational needs and future opportunities of our children. He has subordinated the health of all Americans during a pandemic to personal political goals. And he has brought a great nation to the brink of political and economic collapse. The corruption and incompetence of this Administration has recharacterized the public service role of American institutions to self-serving political agencies aligned with private/special interests. His demagoguery has effectively divided our country along racial and political lines. And his foreign policy has self-isolated America from any constructive role in the global community. Unless existing in a bubble of self-deception or suffering from an acute case of apathy, you, my fellow Americans, must admit our President has declared war on America. And, worse, he has unmasked our weaknesses, thereby challenging us to respond.

Do we believe every American has a right to a general education, to advanced or apprentice training appropriate for a personally chosen career, to a tax and tariff system that favors the prosperity of all Americans, to a political system aligned with our Constitution and capable of self-correction through Congressional oversight and judicial review, and to Presidential leadership dedicated to preserving our lives, laws, values and general welfare? If so, we must reject what divides us, whether partisanship, prejudice, avarice, power mongering, or cynicism. Then we must turn away from the demagoguery and lies that promote these divisions in our culture. America was born with lofty goals. But, compared with other cultures, we have not had much time to grow out of our infancy and realize the full maturity of our founding ideals. In some sense, we are still suffering a persistent adolescence. And, like the experience of our youth, it is not unusual to confront challenges to our rights of passage like a petulant bully or the grosser appeals of our own nature—both of which inhibit our progress. Nevertheless, we must eventually pass into adulthood. This moment in our history is that coming of age point. The bully is our President who believes he has “total power” with no sense of American history, jurisprudence, or our very subsistence as a democratic republic. We must remove him from office if this democracy is to survive. And the grosser appeals of partisanship over patriotism and of power over consensus present the immediate obstacles we must also overcome to reach our maturity. Furthermore, we must remove from office any elected representative who fails to support the basic principles and Constitutional structure of our government.

It is time to resurrect our hope for change and reengage the American quest for a more perfect union. What hangs in the balance is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for us and our children.

__________________________________________________________________
¹ This quote is taken from a conversation between two popes in the movie “Two Popes.”
² Merrill D. Peterson, “Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation,” p. 961.
³ Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” Volume 1, p. 280.

Remember when much political capital was given to hope and change. The context then was the reapplication of American ideals in a diverse and ever-changing world. The core issues within that context centered around securing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everybody in an increasingly pluralistic population during an explosive expansion of technology, a global economy, and contending media crosstalk. The goal then, as our President repeatedly reminded us, was to continue the American quest to “form a more perfect union.” Is that goal still sought today?

My thoughts on this question must inevitably fall upon the person who knocked on the door of the White House over 2 ½ centuries ago. When President Lincoln was told a negro man by the name of Frederick Douglas was at the door, he stopped whatever he was doing and ordered him admitted. It was not unusual for any person to show up unannounced at that time. In fact, Lincoln often had people lined up in front of the White House requesting an audience with the President. But never had a negro made that request at the door of an American President. But Douglas was on a mission. He wanted the esteemed log-splitter to understand why it was not enough to block the expansion of slavery to the new territories. He wanted slavery abolished. And he was living proof of that injustice. He had returned from exile in England with enough money to buy his freedom from his slave owner. Many white Englishmen and Americans had contributed to his personal cause, not just because of their ethics, but because they believed in him as living proof of inherent human dignity. He was manifestly not a piece of property.

A few nights ago, we received word that John Lewis had passed. He had been part of Martin Luther King’s attempt to form a coalition of conscience to free African Americans of residual systemic racism. He had walked with King across the Edmond Pettus bridge where he nearly lost his life. And, with King, he too knocked on the door of Presidents, namely, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. They, like Douglas before them, wanted to recruit a President to their cause and awaken the conscience of America. They also wanted what Lincoln wanted—to preserve the union. But they also knew that union could not survive unless made more perfect by assuring liberty and justice for all. They wanted to save the soul of America, that is, the revered goals upon which it was founded. I believe it was Lewis’ dedication to saving America that inspired John Meacham to call him a saint. How else would you describe a person willing to sacrifice all his time and energy and risk his very life to a cause that so intrinsically benefited others of all colors?

But the cause that consumed Lewis’ life does not end with him. It continues with the “black lives matter” (BLM) movement. In fact, his life not only inspires but impels that movement forward. For the soul of America has never been more endangered. Centuries of progress are at risk as our President threatens to turn back the clock—and with the aid of a complicit group of Republican Senators and Congressmen/women. We are not only witnessing a reincarnation of the Confederate legacy of white supremacy and George Wallace’s racism, but a reemergence of the political divisiveness characterized by the McCarthy era. But there is a countervailing reemergence of hope and change inspired by recent protests. America has seen similar moments of change before. Joseph McCarthy, for example, was replaced by Republicans who redefined conservatism closer to the vision of Jefferson. In fact, led by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen, the GOP helped pass the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Today, we have the Lincoln Project, a group of influential Republicans, who are attempting to unseat a corrupt and incompetent Republican President. Together with the BLM protestors and many other American patriots, they are knocking on the door of the White House. Though it is not likely the present resident will welcome them in, they still retain the power to reclaim the “people’s house” and escort him out.

If every human being enters the world through their mother’s birth canal and with the same genetic base, then every individual begins with a clean slate and deserves an equal opportunity to develop their individual talents and realize their personally formed goals. This is the basic birth right that inspired Jefferson to assert “unalienable rights . . . of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The challenge we still face as Americans is full realization of what Jefferson wrote in our Declaration of Independence and what our founding fathers reiterated in the Preamble of the Constitution. That is the realization that puts all Americans in the same ship of state, all together rowing forward in sync. We no longer need a military revolution, for we have the political power to implement equal opportunity or liberty and justice for all. Unless we do so, we will never realize that “more perfect union.”

At his inauguration, President Trump painted a very dark image of America. Sixty million people identified their grievances with this image. Perhaps, after 3 ½ years, his supporters may well begin to reevaluate how their President has redrawn that image into an even darker portrait. But, as our previous President reminded us, “that’s not who we are” and “that’s not who we can be.” It is once again time to raise the torch of freedom. We must all knock on that White House door and carry that torch forward.

Recently, former President Barack Obama spoke of a conversation he had with John Lewis after a virtual town meeting with young activists. He penned the following remarks:

Afterwards, I spoke to him privately, and he could not have been prouder of their efforts—of a new generation standing up for freedom and equality, a new generation intent on voting and protecting the right to vote, a new generation running for political office. I told him that all those young people—of every race, from every background and gender and sexual orientation—they were his children. They had learned from his example, even if they didn’t know it.

I could conclude with these remarks from our first black President. Or I might rephrase Jefferson’s declarative statement on when “it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve political bands . . . and to assume . . . the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them . . . they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” It is past the time when America should separate from President Trump and his war on America. We should all follow John Lewis’ example of peaceful, but determined, protests until we bend America to the justice of its grand aspirations.

Why is America a Democracy? The electorate does not legislate. It does not directly govern itself or determine national foreign policy. Nor does it decide on how the laws are enforced. It allocates all those powers of a legislator, executive, or judge to others who represent their will and secure their general welfare. Since “democracy” means “people rule,” how can the American people rule in a representative democracy, otherwise called a democratic republic? Our founders thought—perhaps, hoped—that America would always have an informed electorate, representatives of high moral character who could be trusted, and an independent judicial system. The only assurance they could provide for the preservation of this American republic was a Constitution that not only reinforced the ideals for this new republic but also a system of government that would assure it could not be overthrown by hegemonic, imperial/dictatorial, or corruptive forces. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 Benjamin Franklin defined America’s new democracy as a “republic, if we can keep it.”

Even the author of the American colonies’ Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, had his doubts about the future of this new democratic republic. After receiving a draft of the new American Constitution from James Madison, he replied to his friend as follows:

“ this reliance (on the electorate) cannot deceive us as long as we remain virtuous (italics my own): and I think we shall be so, as long as agriculture is our principal object, which will be the case, while there remain vacant lands in any part of America. When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe, and go to eating one another as they do there.” ¹

It may shock some to read this excerpt, but the context explains his words. As our ambassador to France, he was witness to the political turmoil in Paris, which mirrored the protests and street violence occurring in many cities throughout Europe at the time. Whereas the American population of three million souls was spread across the Eastern Coast of the new world, Paris, like all the major cities in Europe, was densely populated. Jefferson’s prognosis for the new world was realistic, given his firsthand experience of the old world. But I see some reprise in his use of the word “virtuous.” It speaks to the very ideals that inspired his enlightened declaration of freedom. He imagined an informed and patriotic citizenry committed to maintaining peace, the general welfare, and liberty and justice for all. He questioned,

“whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government, or information to the people. This last is the most certain, and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” ¹

My wife is a teacher, so she has no doubt in the importance of an education. At times, I worry about how well we “educate and inform” our children in their American heritage and their role in the “preservation of our liberty.” Not many of us will earn Pulitzer or Noble Prices. But we should know and understand the significance of our founding documents and our individual responsibility to preserve and evolve that legacy in a changing world. Sovereignty in this democratic republic rests with the people. My concern is peeked during elections when we choose who will represent us. Will the people we put in office serve the general welfare and adhere both to our Constitution and our founding principles? Our elected representatives must be accountable to us, not to campaign financiers or Party bosses. This system of government depends upon an informed citizenry and both the trusts bequeathed to its representatives and their moral character in serving that trusts.

“In God we trust” is written on the back of our one-dollar bill. But God does not vote in our general election. Belief in God, however, can guide our every decision. When it does, we trust the outcome of our decisions and actions. In fact, belief is behind much of what we do, including who we love, what we support, and who we vote for. It is the basis for our Pledge of Allegiance. When we vote, we not only express our belief in “liberty and justice for all,” but display our trusts that candidates for government office not only share our beliefs but will act on them.

Why, you might ask, does this blog space sometimes sound a Cassandra-like alarm of impending doom? The answer can be found in the dark mirror of contemporary America where ignorance and apathy inhibit belief in our founding ideals, where our elected officials undermine our trusts by serving partisan and personal interests rather than the general welfare, where our government substitutes “educate and inform the whole mass of the people” with lies, propaganda, and conspiracy theories designed to dupe Americans into supporting the greed and power mongering of corrupt and incompetent public officials. Of course, this dark reflection can be shattered by an electorate that believes truth matters, equal opportunity matters, our Constitution matters, black lives matter, healthcare matters, planet health matters, and America’s virtue really matters.

America’s virtue is the belief its citizens must share in its founding ideals, the trust its citizens must demand of public officials to serve those ideals and their general welfare, and the patriotism its citizens must muster to realize the promise of a more perfect union. Without this virtue, our republic will not and cannot be called a democracy.

_______________________________________________________________________
¹ Thomas Jefferson, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” selected and edited by Saul K. Padover, Easton Press, Norwalk, Connecticut, P. 314-315.

Does it seem normal that politicians too often say they support something their actions disavow? Well, your answer reveals one of two things or both. You either agree the implied contradiction is normal as a statement of fact. Or you might disagree that this type of contradiction should be considered normal. And, finally, you might accept both answers as true in the sense that both the act and the implied contradiction are simply a commonplace reality. The first answer reveals that you are a realist: “things are what they are.” The second, reveals you as a moralist: “things are not what they should be.” And the third, identifies you as an agnostic who can only represent his/herself as a cynic: “so what.” To put it bluntly, immorality often seems unavoidable in politics. Or, as my East-Philly uncle would say, “what ӓr yӓ gonna do.” Herein is the basic case for apathy.

Why do I find the title of this blog relevant? Janus was a mythological figure with two heads joined back-to-back, therefore seeing both the receding present or past and the future at once. In modern parlance, Janus is also that two-faced anomaly that presents contradictory facades: not just the past/future of mythology, but right/wrong, good/bad, amicable/hostile, and so on. Our current President, for example, presents us with this type of Janus façade. He will often appear to take two sides of an issue. For example, he declares himself as a “law and order President,” while ordering a violent attack on peaceful protestors exercising their First Amendment rights. He claims to be the best friend of black Americans while equivocating the violent clash between Klu Klux Clan and American citizens as a principled disagreement between good people. He claims success on many issues that have challenged his Presidency, like nuclear non-proliferation issues with Russia, North Korea and Iran, Covid-19 mitigation, unfair bilateral trade with China, continued US economic expansion, and the “greatest stock market in history.” In fact, these “successes” are either boldfaced lies or, arguably, distortions of reality. Some, nevertheless, believe the President. While admitting he is a boldfaced liar, they just shrug their shoulders, equating the President’s claims as “par for the course” in politics. They accept his contradictory personae as the modern version of a successful politician, that is, a two-faced Janus or, simply, “Trump being Trump.”

Throughout history, there have been men who have sought absolute power, which demands their every word or action be accepted as true, lawful, and normal. For centuries, they subjugated their people under the auspices of the “divine right of kings.” And, within the lifetime of many of us, they committed heinous crimes against the peoples they governed and started wars to subjugate others under their command. Lord Acton of England understood these actions as “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Was Lord Acton stating a law of nature or divine mandate? Or was he defining a predictable and unavoidable aberration of human nature? Perhaps so. Nevertheless, his statement does not and cannot deny our ability to withhold the exercise of such power—what President Trump terms as his “total authority.” Our Constitution and form of government does not empower any President to exercise such authority. Nor should we as American citizens. Such an abuse of power would dehumanize the body politic by denying the exercise of free will and self-government according to laws and norms acceptable to our society and individual consciences. The exercise of absolute power is the greatest danger to any society that values liberty and justice for all.

Notably, on the same day that the President was both establishing his credentials as a “law and order” President and ordering his motley crew of enforcers to attack peaceful protesters, he had previously received a call from President Putin. Of course, we have no knowledge of the substance of that call. But the timing is ironic, in the sense of my Janus analogy. Both men appear Janus-like in their Presidency: savior/prosecutor, restorer/destroyer. They promise greatness or empire while delivering death, destruction, and chaos that extends beyond their sovereign borders.

More specifically, President Putin is a master of multiple faces – many of which are self-contradictory. I mean, we know that he has many more significant roles than that of a hockey player, a pilot, a shirtless horseback rider, a conservationist, or a biker. He is possibly the richest and most powerful man in the world. While he serves as a dedicated representative of his people, he is also a ruthless and vindictive adversary to his enemies. He can be admired and feared at the same time. He may well be President Trump’s model, but they have little in common besides their Janus-like self-image. President Putin is both a student of Russian history and an historical figure in the continuing evolution of modern Russia. While his American Janus has only one purpose—to win or obtain enough votes to stay in power, President Putin assumes absolute power for a more patriotic purpose, the restoral of Russia’s greatness. His many faces are designed to identify himself with the people he governs—not to win votes. He dominates by consensus of the governed, not via an electoral college. Unlike Trump, he has risen through the ranks of power and has a firm knowledge of Russian history, governing principles, and its people (narodnost). Russians generally like and support him. The American President’s following is not based upon any substantive contribution he has made to American institutions or history. He is either admired as a cult figure or hated for the same reason. While Americans can disagree with the Russian President’s excesses, they must take him seriously as a Russian patriot and elected leader. His American mimic, however, hides behind a façade of power and bleak bluster a fragile ego. In place of substance or character, he presents the many contradictory faces that comedians worldwide ridicule.

In this context, my use of the classical Janus allegory is a simplistic derivative of its core message. The Romans, for example, used the Janus figure as a generalized symbol of transitions at doorways, gates, or the beginning of a new year. Here, I am applying it to two world leaders who stand as pivot points in modern history. One of these leaders reinterprets an historical past in his strategy to build a new future for his country. The other boasts about self-perceived attributes he demands his country validate. The first is a Russian patriot who dearly wants to incorporate Russia’s past governance into a future Russia, founded on law-based order, strong central government, and reflective of all ethnic and civil elements of the Russian people. The second is an imposter whose only interest in leadership is self-aggrandizement rather than the future advancement of his country or its people.

Henry Adams, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, foresaw Russia’s empire history as a premonition of a future threat to Europe. In part, his prognosis was realized, at least until the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics of Russia collapsed at the end of the century. Vladimir Putin is the leader who wants to restore that union and Russia’s influence on the world stage of the 21st century. Donald Trump, however, has no historical precedent and no strategic imperative for the nation other than cannibalizing its resources and power for his personal gain. His Presidency is out of sync with well established norms for the office he holds. It functions in violation of the American Constitution, in repudiation of Congressional oversight, and in constant conflict with the rulings of judicial courts. Trump’s knowledge of his country’s history seems so vacuous that it remains questionable whether he has even read the American Constitution. While Putin exercises the power of a tsar with both electoral and constitutional legitimacy, Trump assumes powers neither the electorate nor the American Constitution grant him. While Putin exercises near absolute power, Trump salivates for acolytes to bend a knee before his Resolute Desk. Both men are dangerous, but for different reasons. President Putin, though a careful strategist, could overplay his hand. The result might be Russia’s economic collapse or the onset of an unstoppable war. President Trump, however, has already accomplished the feat of establishing a corrupt and incompetent Administration and of single-handedly destroying America’s influence in maintaining global cooperation on all matters of health, peace, and justice.

While Putin is the prime agent of an ascending world power, Trump is the catalyst for a descending world power. Both men present Janus-like transitions to a new world order, neither of whom preclude the machinations of Xi Jinping to build a dominant world power.

It is time for Americans to face facts, not false façades. When Donald Trump touts his message of “make America great again,” he is referring to the America that emerged as the lone super power after a world war and as a pluralist society still deeply entrenched in the Jim Crow era. That America existed in his teens. His adolescence then appears to have informed his predominant policy tendencies: “America first” in foreign diplomacy and white privilege in domestic politics. Trump’s vision of America ignores the second half of the 20th century. It is recidivistic. It lends itself to myriad contradictory interpretations. And it ill-prepares him to address the real problems of our time.

Both Trump and Putin want to recapture their country’s “greatness.” Putin, mindful of the two catastrophic collapses of the Russian empire during the previous century, wants to reimagine a new Russia for the 21st century. He is attempting to build a more modern economy and provide the strategic reserves that future setbacks may require. Russia’s emergence from the 2008 Great Recession is evidence of his success. By contrast, Trump was oblivious of his responsibility to refurbish FEMA’s stockpiles after two natural disasters during his Administration. Moreover, he has tragically reversed the economic expansion he inherited by failing to address its most serious threat, a world pandemic. America is now in the grip of the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression as a result. His only plan for the foreseeable future is to win reelection. The price for ignoring his responsibility to address a national crisis is a huge increase in the national debt, massive unemployment, an unchecked viral contagion that has infected millions, and American deaths that number in six figures. There is a maxim that states “any leader ignorant of history is doomed to repeat it.” Putin, to his credit, understands this lesson of history. Trump, however, follows a different dictum, which I would characterize as “any leader ignorant of history and grossly incompetent can create a disaster unparalleled in history.”

This year, Americans face an historical pivot point. That point is Janus-like in that it demands we reprise history to guide our future. The history I reference here is our founding ideals and the purpose of our tripartite government. We must reject a rogue President, his corrupted Administration, and all Republicans complicit in his misconduct. We may well have to reinvent America, demand the next Administration right the ship of state, and undo the damage Donald Trump has unleashed on our democratic institutions, our foreign policy, and our national security. We must renew our quest for a more perfect union. America must have a renaissance or face an unheralded demise.
_______________________________________________

< For more thoughts on specific threats to our democracy, refer to a year-old blog entitled “All Problems Solved.”
< For more thoughts on the impact of American democracy on the world, refer to a blog written in April of 2016, “American Democracy in a Dangerous World.”

Most of us would agree, American cities must do a better job of securing public safety, especially regarding systemic racism and the use of excessive force by our local police. We hear the chant from demonstrators across the nation for defunding police departments. But I doubt they want criminals taking over their streets. Instead, they want their local constabulary to address criminal behavior in their community, rather than deliver the social services that social workers and community health professionals are better trained to provide. And, most especially, they want actual police work done humanely by better trained, closely monitored, and fully accountable officers. Unleashing tear gas and brutalizing peaceful protestors cannot be the actions of any police force trained and dedicated to public safety. Legal loopholes, like qualified immunity or complicit relationships with politicians or State attorneys must be legally and structurally eliminated. Otherwise, how can we restore/maintain integrity in our local police departments and trusts in the communities they support.

Changing policing in America will fall mainly upon local governments, though the Federal Government can be more supportive. Consent decrees and Federally sponsored data collection efforts can aid the States in their efforts to address issues like excessive force and racial profiling. But the current Administration ended these efforts immediately upon taking office in January of 2017. And the President’s Attorney General shows no interest in police reform. Currently, Congress is proposing legislation that would, among other things, outlaw choking as an appropriate means of police restraint and restrict the use of force in “no-knock” entries. But the Administration and the Republican-controlled Senate have so far refused to consider these proposals. Instead, the President has advocated for harsher policing. Recently, he ordered an odd mixture of prison riot police, ICE officers, park police, and the National Guard to attack a peaceful demonstration so that he could stage an unimpeded political stunt, aka, photo op.

Unbelievably, he even ordered combat troops to Washington D.C. to “control” demonstrations. And, yes, if you are wondering, this action is an abuse of power and a violation of Americans’ First Amendment rights. Thankfully, many military officers, including the past four Generals of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed alarm at the President’s actions. These troops, fortunately, were not used and were quietly ordered back to their bases. As one four star general and former Secretary of Defense in the current Administration stated, the President was using the Nazis’ playbook of “divide and conquer.” Many other military leaders agreed, stating that the President would not be justified in invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to engage the US military in the suppression of overwhelmingly peaceful and lawful protests. Such action violates the concept of the bill of rights as outlined in the US Constitution. Donald Trump, however, characterizes himself as “the law and order” President opposed to criminal arsonists, looters, and miscreants. Ironically, he associates hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestors with a few bad actors and provocateurs. In his own words, he correlates “looting and shooting” thereby justifying an indiscriminate response to all protestors in lieu of the actual instigators. He even tweets a Russian propaganda conspiracy that implicates the “left” which he identifies with his political opponents. With this phony conspiracy, he attempts to justify his Administration’s suppression of peaceful protests. But, contrary to his purpose, his actions merely establish him as an instigator of violence.

Today, George Floyd was laid to rest, next to his departed mother—the woman he called out in his last moments of life. Besides the protest marches in all our 50 States, there is one image I cannot remove from my mind. It is the expression on the face of Floyd’s murderer as he slowly crushed the life out of his victim’s body. He could not have appeared more nonchalant—as if he were casually stomping out a roach. I have seen that face before. And it chills my blood still.

In combat, soldiers face death in a kill or be killed situation. For even the most battle-tested warrior, the killing field presents an intense and emotional experience that persists in memory or nightmares for the rest of his/her life. For any person of conscience, the experience of taking another person’s life—however justified as self-defense or the preservation of life and liberty for others—leaves one with feelings of remorse. But this experience may not be shared by a soldier who napalms a village of defenseless civilians or who mistreats a helpless prisoner of war. That soldier may not consider the “gook” a fellow human. He has no conscience! For he cannot recognize humanity in the enemy. We have seen his like in every war—whether it is “japs,” “ragheads,” or “gooks” he dehumanizes—he justifies his superiority by subjugating, even killing others “not like him.” From the story of the Good Samaritan to the history of tribal warfare between and within nations and civilizations, we have witnessed “man’s inhumanity to man.” Thankfully, there are few times we confront this dark image of our species in the face of a soulless individual. I described such a person in my first novel (“A Culpable Innocence” ˟). His face still haunts me. I saw his likeness in Floyd’s murderer. And it still chills my blood.

There are many reasons why soldiers and police volunteer to “serve and protect.” Killing the innocent or helpless cannot and must not be one of those reasons.

Many thousand protestors have reacted as I have. They see the common humanity we all share trampled not just by a few bad cops, but by systemic racism. The Africans that were kidnapped and sold into slavery 401 years ago became a millstone around the neck of America’s conscience, strangling the life out of our founding ideals. “All men are created equal,” if not born into slavery. We all have “inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” if not descended from slaves or share their skin color. But the protestors are not merely demanding justice for Floyd’s murders, but for themselves. They are speaking for the conscience of America. In the most diverse nation in history, Americans must realize our common purpose “to form a more perfect union,” else lose the promise of our founding. And that promise is America’s soul.

_______________________________________________________________

˟In case of interest, my first novel is still available in paperback. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1618563246/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vamf_taft_p1_i0

In the past, Memorial Day celebrations included parades, air force flyovers, military gun salutes, outdoor picnics, and concerts, and lots of retail sales. Well, this Memorial Day is different, not because there are no Persian rug clearance sales, but because of the Covid-19 pandemic. So how do we “celebrate?”

As a Vet, I hung an American flag on my balcony railing. But I am beginning to question what it represents to many Americans. Have we lost the spirit of Memorial Day because we cannot celebrate as we had in the past? Or is there something about Memorial Day that we should still celebrate, even if confined to our homes or if restricted to self-distancing gatherings?

For those of us who have never visited Arlington, a video scan of this iconic cemetery will leave you breathless. Endless rows of tombstones remind us of how many Americans died in our foreign wars—so many lifeless stones in a field of living trees and grass. The names engraved there remain known only by the few who grieved and mourned their deaths. Apart from those mourners, what should the rest of us memorialize? Why should we feel grateful for the sacrifice of those who accepted the call to military service and the risk of injury or death in that service?

Whether a draftee from the past or a volunteer in the present, each soldier accepts a call to duty, specifically, to serve the most vital interests of the United States. But a soldier is not asked to accept the foreign policy initiatives of a specific Administration. No, instead a soldier pledges allegiance to America as “one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.” That pledge used to be made daily in every school in America. Its final words mirror the Preamble to our Constitution and reflect the values that inspired its authors.

Memorial Day provides us the opportunity to question and restore that fundamental allegiance that differentiates America from the history that preceded it. Not even a pandemic should interfere with our reflection upon and renewal of that basic allegiance. For it is the very definition of patriotism.

In our current reality, political divisions within our population and our government can test the strength of our patriotism. But it should not deter us from our allegiance to America. We can critique our elected representatives and still honor the offices they hold in our name. We can disagree on political matters, but still serve the greater good implied by our patriotism. There is an ebb and flow to politics—remember once there was slavery and the absence of women’s suffrage—but Americans have shown an ability to redirect their country towards a greater realization of its grand purpose. Memorial Day should remind us to renew our allegiance to America’s founding principles and hold accountable our elected representatives to their oaths of allegiance as well.

Certainly, being a patriot can be challenging when our government strays from its core principles or basic human rights. During such times, we must look past present circumstances and aim our efforts towards a future that builds upon our progress. There are times when we must rise above divisive issues, listen to all voices, and then choose a path forward that aligns with the long-held promise of America. We cannot be a country defined by ill-conceived wars, short-sighted foreign policy, caged children, and a government riddled with corruption and incompetence. We cannot allow ourselves to be sorted by race, economic status, gender, country of origin, or political party. We are Americans! And we define our future rather than have it defined for us.

Vote! And honor the patriots who went before us and who now stand by our side.